"You can't help having a theory: whatever you do,from peeliing potatoes to flying airplanes, you go on the basis of some mental image of what's what--and that's all theory amounts to. And if your ideas of what's what are correct, you will do it well." Stick and Rudder bottom of page 4. We need take care, instructors, about the mental images of what's what we indoctrinate.

Design, maintenance, and even instrument flying require adherence to science, math, and precision engineering. In contact flying, we just don't have well established vertical and horizontal space available with certain unalterable conditions. What's what, then, is developed as much from experience. We experience various gross weights, density altitude, weather, wind, thermals,orographic lift, terrain, drainage, gusts, field conditions...the sights and sounds and feel of things. Preflight preparation, including theory, needs to be as fluid as the flight environment. That includes the low altitude stuff during takeoff and landing.

Indoctrination need be mindful of the absolutes that MTV cautions us about. We appropriately teach different techniques for different operations. Contact only is safer low, also while driving. Integrated instrument with contact skills is fine when high enough to recover from inadvertent stall. IFR is safest A to B.

An example of indoctrination going beyond our intent as instructors is the admonition to climb, communicate, and confess. Mute when training in trainers that have no radio, this admonition takes the student away from good low visual reconnaissance. But most dangerously, it indoctrinates the theory that altitude is more important than airspeed.

Just a thought: Climb when practicable. Land when practicable. Communicate if possible. After landing someone usually shows up. Confession is always good for the sole.

There are also principles about what's what that stand up under multi-iteration trial. Stick and Rudder is important because it is full of those principles. The design of the airplane is such that airspeed can be converted into altitude and altitude into airspeed, so the law of the roller coaster is a firm principle. The airplane is designed with dynamic neutral stability, so the nose always wants to go down in turns. Elevator trim may be the cat's meow, but it works against designed stability...sometimes dangerously. As airplanes got bigger and faster, trim usage wanted greater instructor emphasis. That was appropriate...for bigger and faster airplanes.

What do you think is what out there? Where did that orientation come from? Have you tested the spirit of that theory? As JP256 said in a recent post, "I learned about flying from that." Most of us have learned about flying from various thats, various what's whats. Unfortunately, those what's whats seldom result in any change in doctrine. It usually takes a major accident involving many fatalities to do that.

When we begin our takeoff run, logic would indicate that having the longitudinal axis aligned with the centerline would result in the nose staying centered. Experience teaches us that is not what's what. Either static reactional rudder usage, or better dynamic proactive rudder usage will be necessary. Same with elevator usage to stay in low ground effect. Same with rudder usage on short final, touchdown, and roll out.

What's what with the nose going down when we slow down or turn? Is that safe? What's what about strict coordination in Dutch rolls. Does that work or is what's what that the rudder has to be applied first? What's what with the diameter of turn? Is it that slower airspeed results in a faster rate of turn? From cruise is power reduction or pitch up the more energy efficient way to slow up? What's what with the airspeed of touchdown during full stall landing, Vso or less than Vso? What's what with pitch control of airspeed? Is it true at any airspeed? What's what with power control of rate of descent? Is it true at any airspeed. How about power control of airspeed? Is it true at any airspeed.? How about pitch control of altitude? Is it true at any airspeed?

Upset or coming unglued happens when the controls don't work as expected. Airplanes are so well designed that we expect the controls always to work as expected. If our ideas of what's what are correct, the controls will work as expected.

Experience and iterations to sort out what's what can be inspired by written theory like Stick and Rudder and How to Fly Airplanes, by Robert Resser, and many others. It can be inspired by dynamic instructors who pass on what they have sorted out. It can be potato peeled out by the pilot himself through enough iterations to confirm and perfect it. Sanctioned pilot prep material is designed to conform to sanctioned theory and be easy to arbitrarily evaluate using numbers. It is not meant to inspire.

This does not mean that tried and true is not safe. It just means that tried and true might not be the safest, most efficient, most enjoyable, or whatever our objective is. Hartburn at the top, like Upset, Loss of Control, and CFIT, is indication that tried and true is under further evaluation by the authorities. This is good. The heartburn is not. That tried and true might be under further evaluation before heartburn is probably just too much to ask.

The terms we use say a lot about our theory. For instance do we say egress from a high altitude airport or do we still say climb out. What's what with that kind of thinking. We may be at ceiling on the airport and climb may not be possible. Down drainage egress now becomes critical. Never do anything that dumb? OK. Down drainage egress is still the safer way to go and the better theory about what's what. Low DA or high, still the safer theory. Do you actually weigh all that stuff every time you go?